How did the word/phrase "on" or "for him" in relation to pregnancy & periods

pickarooney · 26-06-2011 09:58AM

doctorwhogirl wrote: »

I think the whole "fell" pregnant in Ireland prob stems from the whole "Fallen woman" angle we had going in the mega catholic times. :rolleyes::mad:

No, it's just analogous with "fall ill" and "fall in love" and is used in most English-sepaking countries outside of North America. The verb 'fall' is used in many languages to describe this kind of stage of change. But keep rolling.

Count Duckula · 26-06-2011 01:06PM

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd like to point out that saying someone has "fallen pregnant" is used commonly over here in the UK, too! It could quite conceivably (hur hur) have its roots in Hiberno-English as I honestly don't know its origins, but it's no longer a uniquely Irish phrase.

Neyite · 26-06-2011 06:04PM

premierlass wrote: »

The one that gets me is "we're pregnant" which I hear a lot from America. I'm not going to say that it denies the role of the woman in giving birth, because I really don't think that's the intention, but it's ridiculous. I just don't understand why people don't use the "we're having a baby" phrase instead, which says all that is needful.

My partner and I have just started treatment with a fertility clinic and the night before he was telling me not to worry and that "we were in this together" I burst out laughing and pointed out that producing a sperm sample with the help of asian porn is not comparable to what I am about to go through. When the doctor was prescribing the drugs I need to take, she started to explain the long litany of possible side effects* I was half serious when I requested that he have a similar prescription, as "we were in this together"

*twins/triplets, hot flushes, bloating, abdominal pain, weight gain, mood swings, nausea, dizzyness, headaches, abnormal bleeding, breast tenderness, and vaginal dryness, in case you are curious

pickarooney · 26-06-2011 11:14PM

Count Duckula wrote: »

I don't mean to be an ass, but I'd like to point out that saying someone has "fallen pregnant" is used commonly over here in the UK, too! It could quite conceivably (hur hur) have its roots in Hiberno-English as I honestly don't know its origins, but it's no longer a uniquely Irish phrase.

Seeing as the construct doesn't, as far as I know, exist in Irish itself, that would be highly unlikely.

Elle Collins · 27-06-2011 03:16PM

Acoshla wrote: »

But the "We're pregnant" sh*t really annoys me, she's pregnant, we/ye are having a baby. Pregnant: (of a woman or female animal) Having a child or young developing in the uterus. The father is not pregnant and I find it odd when they describe it as such.

+ 1

This does my head in too.

I've no problem with anyone saying they're having a baby "for" their partner though. It's just a term that refers to who the baby's father is. Why would anyone get worked up about that??

Penny Dreadful · 27-06-2011 03:37PM

msthe80s wrote: »

The only time I ever heard the expression 'pregnant for' was in The Snapper when Sharon Curley told her friends she was pregnant-one of them asked 'who are ya having it for?'.

As for periods- I'd like to think the years of saying 'I have my friend' or 'aunt sally' is long gone. How embarrassing was that.:o

Everything is over analysed nowadays-( even the over analysing)

Hee hee, the Snapper is the only place I heard it used too:) Classic film however that said, the phrase bugs the hell out of me too.
Being "on" e.g. "about to come on", "should have come on my now" and such like are phrases about your period that I first (and most often hear) heard in England. It irritates me a lot for some reason I can't quite understand. If you're going to have your period your period simple as.

Penny Dreadful · 27-06-2011 03:38PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

+ 1

This does my head in too.

I've no problem with anyone saying they're having a baby "for" their partner though. It's just a term that refers to who the baby's father is. Why would anyone get worked up about that??

Because it makes you sound like a baby making machine:)

seenitall · 27-06-2011 03:42PM

Worked up?

Hardly. But the expression does make it sound a tad like the woman is a baby-dispenser "for" the man. Almost ownership-like sounding, while in reality she is having it "for" both parents together (never heard it myself so far, though).

What's wrong with "with", sounds so much nicer and describes the equality in the experience?

Malari · 27-06-2011 03:48PM

I've never heard either of these two expressions. Only the "fell" pregnant one. They all sound odd to me though!

amdublin · 27-06-2011 07:40PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

I've no problem with anyone saying they're having a baby "for" their partner though. It's just a term that refers to who the baby's father is. Why would anyone get worked up about that??

Eh sorry but I'm not having a baby for anyone. I'm not here on earth to do one thing and that's to have a baby for a man, no thank you.

As a term that refers to who the babys father is surely you could just say xxxx is the father of her baby. Rather than making me sound like a baby making machine thank you.

Why would anyone not get worked up about someone implying that they are a baby dispenser for a man

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 10:53AM

amdublin wrote: »

Eh sorry but I'm not having a baby for anyone. I'm not here on earth to do one thing and that's to have a baby for a man, no thank you.

As a term that refers to who the babys father is surely you could just say xxxx is the father of her baby. Rather than making me sound like a baby making machine thank you.

Why would anyone not get worked up about someone implying that they are a baby dispenser for a man

In fairness I don't think you understand that term as it is meant in speech amdublin. If you were familiar with it as part of the lingo you'd grown up with you'd get its meaning and know it has nothing to do with suggesting that women are baby dispensers for men. (I've very much a feminist woman and would have an issue with it myself if that were its intention.)

It's just a working-class colloquialism that identifies the father, and 'for' here is used interchangably with 'by'. If the latest news is that such and such a woman is pregnant you'll very often hear "Who's she having it for/by?". This is an inoffensive phrase and you're drawing an insinuation from it that doesn't exist in the minds of those speaking it.

metrovelvet · 28-06-2011 11:33AM

^ It does sound like you are doing someone a favor. The first time I heard it I thought it was referring to surrogacy.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 11:56AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ It does sound like you are doing someone a favor. The first time I heard it I thought it was referring to surrogacy.

Well, now you know better. I'm sure there are plenty of Americanisms that'd confuse me on first hearing them too.

professore · 28-06-2011 12:02PM

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

"Falling" pregnant, and having a baby "for" him, were both expressions I first heard in London in the 70s. They hadn't been used in Ireland. They were both expressions used by the working class (or whatever that socio-economic level is called now). I figured they arrived here via soaps and Chat magazine... Still don't really hear it in the more middle-classes.

Used also drive me nuts in England to hear the midwives talk about the "Mummies". What's wrong with Mothers???? Then I found the same happening here. I used always ignore them, or if in a good mood correct them - don't blinkin' call me a mummy just because I'm pregnant! You know my name, it's on the chart. And if referring to the category of female parents, call us 'mothers' for heavens sake.

Yes these are most definitely English expressions. Just as "The High Street" and "Annual Leave" are, two that drive me insane. What happened to "Main Street" and "Going on holidays" - are we in the army?

seenitall · 28-06-2011 02:37PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

Well, now you know better.

OR it could be that since you grew up with the expression, this is the reason you are the one with the bias in relation to it, as opposed to others on here who can view the implication inherent in that phrase more objectively.

Language is there for a reason - it expresses stuff, either implicitly or explicitly.

metrovelvet · 28-06-2011 02:54PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

Well, now you know better. I'm sure there are plenty of Americanisms that'd confuse me on first hearing them too.

I don't really 'know better'. The use of 'for' in this way is still misleading and incorrect. It only makes literal sense in the context of surrogacy. So I would say that the people saying 'for' who are not surrogates don't know any better.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 03:14PM

Meterovelvet: If the Irish people were to use only terminology that made exact literal sense we would spend most of our time with our mouths shut. I don't know how long you've been living here but if it's more than a few weeks I'm surprised that penny hasn't dropped for you yet.

And Seenitall, there is no mysogynistic implication in that term, other than the one you choose to draw from it. You are critisising a pattern of speech because of your own projections and mistaken interpretation of its intended meaning.

Can't stand these sort of hysterical attitudes I have to say; it is exactly these types of overreactions that give feminism a bad name.

28-06-2011 03:15PM

Elle the only overreactions I see here are from you, telling someone we'd all keep our mouths shut and telling us about our projections

Not a little condescending as well.
The phrase "having a baby for someone" does make little sense outside of surrogacy. There is nothing hysterical about it.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 03:22PM

bluewolf wrote: »

Elle the only overreactions I see here are from you, telling someone we'd all keep our mouths shut and telling us about our projections Not a little condescending as well.
The phrase "having a baby for someone" does make little sense outside of surrogacy. There is nothing hysterical about it.

Bluewolf, some of the people posting here seem to think we ought to call in the language police because of the use of the word 'for' in this context. There have also been comments linking it to misogny (which is hatred of women, let's not forget) I find this over-the-top, ignorant and offensive - and I say so as a feminist.

Malari · 28-06-2011 03:30PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

Bluewolf, some of the people posting here seem to think we ought to call in the language police because of the use of the word 'for' in this context. There have also been comments linking it to misogny (which is hatred of women, let's not forget) I find this over-the-top, ignorant and offensive - and I say so as a feminist.

I don't think it's the language police, I think it's more that people find the phrasing strange. And perhaps suggesting that it stems from the fact that women were supposed to "provide" children "for" their husbands. No-one is really suggesting that people who use the phrase now are being misogynist, but it sounds (to my ears, having never heard it before) like either an out-dated phrase, or in these days when surrogacy is much more common, that you are literally having a baby for another person.

28-06-2011 03:30PM

I do think we have a unique way of expressing ourselves that maybe sound a bit eccentric to others...we say things like tis a grand day when we mean it is... or I might say I met my cousin up the town... or come here to me for a minute:D

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 03:40PM

Malari wrote: »

..it sounds (to my ears, having never heard it before) like either an out-dated phrase, or in these days when surrogacy is much more common, that you are literally having a baby for another person.

But language is not always literal Malari, and it shouldn't always be taken as such. That is the point I am making.

Malari · 28-06-2011 03:45PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

But language is not always literal Malari, and it shouldn't always be taken as such. That is the point I am making.

I didn't say it was

I'm just explaining how it sounds to me (and others) and pointing out that it's an odd way to phrase it. I'm not saying you shouldn't use the phrase because it's incorrect, I just don't like the sound of it.

seenitall · 28-06-2011 04:03PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

But language is not always literal Malari, and it shouldn't always be taken as such. That is the point I am making.

Language reflects social trends, among many other things. Generally speaking, the social history of Ireland is of a patriarchal nature (home, Church, state; linked together by a patriarchal religion).

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:08PM

Malari wrote: »

I didn't say it was I'm just explaining how it sounds to me (and others) and pointing out that it's an odd way to phrase it. I'm not saying you shouldn't use the phrase because it's incorrect, I just don't like the sound of it.

Well that's grand, there's no onus on you or anyone else to like the sound of it! What bothers me about some of the comments on this thread is that they ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is not intended by the speaker. That's what's bothering me.

I do genuinely believe that belief is a projection and I think that's made fairly obvious by the way nobody has raised an objection to the word 'by', which is used in exactly the same context.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:11PM

seenitall wrote: »

Language reflects social trends, among many other things. Generally speaking, the social history of Ireland is of a patriarchal nature (home, Church, state; linked together by a patriarchal religion).

I agree with all the above. It's very obviously true. That does not mean that when I say I had my child 'for' or 'by' a particular man I mean to do anything other than identify who's the kids dad.

metrovelvet · 28-06-2011 04:14PM

Elle Collins wrote: »

Well that's grand, there's no onus on you or anyone else to like the sound of it! What bothers me about some of the comments on this thread is that they ascribe a meaning to the phrase that is not intended by the speaker. That's what's bothering me.

I do genuinely believe that belief is a projection and I think that's made fairly obvious by the way nobody has raised an objection to the word 'by', which is used in exactly the same context.

Intention is only part of meaning. If I called someone a stupid bitch, and then said 'oh sorry I didnt mean it, I meant it in the OTHER meaning', whatever meaning I concocted in my imagination, would I then be right in telling you you were projecting when you object?

Prepositions have pretty definitive meanings even if they are little words. Getting pregnant FOR someone is very different to getting pregnant BY someone. Just has having a baby WITH someone, is very different to having them FOR someone.

As I said in my first post on this subject, I took it as a misuse of prepositions. Call in the language police? No. Summer school? Maybe.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:20PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Intention is only part of meaning. If I called someone a stupid bitch, and then said 'oh sorry I didnt mean it, I meant it in the OTHER meaning', whatever meaning I concocted in my imagination, would I then be right in telling you you were projecting when you object?

Yeah you would, if you were speaking to me in some unheard of culture where "stupid bitch" was an endearment.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Prepositions have pretty definitive meanings even if they are little words. Getting pregnant FOR someone is very different to getting pregnant BY someone. Just has having a baby WITH someone, is very different to having them FOR someone.

Prepositions are let slide in language all the time. They drop out of conversation altogether in some American slang I've listened to.

metrovelvet wrote: »

As I said in my first post on this subject, I took it as a misuse of prepositions. Call in the language police? No. Summer school? Maybe.

It seems you'd like to have people speak to suit your sensibilities. Good luck with that.

metrovelvet · 28-06-2011 04:26PM

You know what...go and have a conversation with yourself because this is now the second time you have started personalising this.

Elle Collins · 28-06-2011 04:31PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You know what...go and have a conversation with yourself because this is now the second time you have started personalising this.

I think that's yourself you're thinking about there Metro.

How did the word/phrase "on" or "for him" in relation to pregnancy & periods

Comments